Lack of Doctrinal Support in Christian Environmentalism - Research Paper Example

Lack of Doctrinal Support in Christian Environmentalism: Yet Promising Introduction Though Christianity is less concernedabout a man’s doctrinal responsibility to environment than to himself and others, the Christian notion about environment or Christian-environmentalism essentially evolves from the indirect biblical references to nature. Referring this lack of Biblical concern about man’s responsibility to nature and environment, in an article, “Christianity: beliefs about care of the planet”, John Hansberry comments, “The Bible has very little else specific to say about the environment, but it explains the principles of stewardship (responsibility) for God’s creation” (1). Indeed the Bible does not directly tell anything about how man should interact with the environment; but concept of ‘nature’ occupies an important part of Christian faith. A devout Christian necessarily believes that the ‘nature’ or in a broader term, the ‘universe’ is the creation of God and man is merely God’s tenant in it. Depending on this doctrinal premise, scholars further build up the Christian environmentalism. Man as the tenant of God on earth should not perturb God’s house. Thus Christianity advocates for an intimate, harmonious and friendly relationship with nature. But the debates on Christianity-and-Environment relationship evolve from the claim that man has been created in the ‘image of God’ which necessarily entails that man is entitled with the ownership of this world. The Christian belief about the ‘ownership status’ of man is supported by the Bible as following: “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground” (Genesis 1:26 and 28). Man’s Ownership Status Versus Man’s Stewardship Status in Christianity During the industrial era, the Christian belief persists that since the world is God’s and man is His true representative on earth, the world belongs to man. Such doctrinal reasoning inspired the industrial society to use the environmental resources ruthlessly and recklessly, as Hansberry notes in this regard: “Some Christians have interpreted this story as giving people the right to exploit the environment.” (1) Behind this ruthless use of earthly resources there is another belief that God is generous and that He has created everything for man’s consumption. But as the concern about man’s harmful impact over nature began to grow, a group of scholars began to emerge under the banner of ‘green Christian environmentalist’ with a view to purporting the harmonious relationship between Christianity and nature. In an article, Sigurd Bergmann marks the shift in Christian approach to environment as following: Older natural theology no longer addresses this situation, and late modern theology is challenged to reconstruct the traditions of creation theology and to interpret in a new key the God who acts in, with and for a world threatened by the human being who God once created in his/her own image. (2) The green Christians advocate that man is entitled with stewardship, not with the ownership of this earth. The view of man as the steward of God proves to be quite able to meet the requirement of ‘spiritual ecology’. Necessarily the ownership-view of man gradually begins to be influenced by the existing environmentalist trend. It becomes influenced by the stewardship-view as well. A Christian in godly image is no more the owner of the environment but the guardian of it. This guardianship is necessarily entailed by the logic that a reckless owner is less preferable to God than the owner who takes up the responsibility of looking after and protecting the environment. This shift from man’s ownership status to stewardship status is not only a response to the modernism’s demand for spiritual connection with the environment. The Green Christians have been quite able to support their stance with biblical evidences also. The first of the Green Christians’ arguments is that the world belongs to God. In support of this claim, they refer to some biblical evidences: “I believe in one God, the Father, the almighty, maker of heaven and earth.” (Genesis 1:26 and 28) Another popular biblical evidence in support of God’s ownership is: “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.” (Psalm 24:1) By referring these scriptural evidences, the Green Christians argue that since the world belongs to God, man has no right to perturb its sanctity and decency unnecessarily. Secondly, the Green Christians argue that God has assigned the duty of taking care of the earth. To support their position, they refer to the Bible: “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” (Genesis 2:15) Here they strongly oppose those who claim that God’s resources are plentiful and they are for man’s use. Indeed the rhetorically asks: if God allows man to use those resources abundantly, then why does He commands to take care of it? According these Green Christian theologians, when God commands men to be “fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground” (Genesis 1:26 and 28), He essentially wants man to be the guardian of earth and environment. The Bible also says, “The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants” (Leviticus 25:23). This tenant-status of men in God’s earth does not permit them to disturb any natural orders and sanctity. Rhetorically speaking, man will come here by birth and eventually leave it at their death. But he must keep it inhabitable for successors. The Christian environmentalists finally claim that Christianity imposes Stewardship, not ownership upon man. Therefore, Christian environmentalism opposes reject any idea, concept or practices that tends to pose threaten the environmental purity. The Heart of Christian Worldview Christian environmentalism especially is outlined on the Old Testament’s narrative accounts of the Israel. Also a major part of Christian worldview comes from the descriptive accounts of Jesus Christ’s personality and his works. Indeed Christian worldview and Christian doctrinal beliefs of the origins of the material world and human being revolves around three points: creation of human beings, fall human beings and redemption as the purpose of human life, as Eisenbarth and Treuren say, “Using these common terms, a meta-narrative framework centered on the concepts of Creation, Fall and Redemption can be constructed” (25). This Christian meta-narrative describes God as a merciful creator of the environment as well as the universe. Also it declares that man is created in the image of God. Another point that Christian doctrinal narrative infers is that man is responsible for his own sin. This fall of human being into sin is essentially the beginning of stress and decay in creation. Finally redemption of human being is man’s attempt to restore to his or her pre-fall state through creation. Indeed this Creation-Fall-Redemption is the most ubiquitous interpretation in the Christian Scriptures. But this basic outline of the Christian Worldview is often variedly interpreted by different interpretive practices that subsists within a variety of Christian traditions and groups, for instances “the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Reformed traditions or independent communities such as the Baptist and Quakers” (Eisenbarth and Treuren 9) Creation-Fall-Redemption: Its Significance in Christian Environmentalism A devout Christian believes that God has created and made the world the most beautiful and comfortably inhabitable for man. But suffering started because of man’s primeval sin. Man must seek redemption by his attempt to unite with God. The argument that environment is to be tamed and exploited for man’s pleasure does not hold water. Since modern man now knows that ruthless exploitation of nature means nothing but destroying it ruthlessly. In this regard, Deem Rich says, “none of these charges of anti-environmentalism stand up to scripture found in the Bible….Six times God affirmed that the creation was good in His sight. The idea that man is free to destroy Gods creation is at odds with Gods obvious enjoyment of His creation taught in Genesis one.” (1) Due to the variety of Christian dogmatic beliefs and practices, there, acceptably, exist a number of narrative elucidations and thus a “variety of worldviews that fall under the Christian umbrella” (Eisenbarth and Treuren 6). Nevertheless, a number of Biblical references indicate to a predominantly functional elucidation of the Redemption narrative. Obviously some paradigms that are basically different from the Redemption Paradigm tend to provide the Christian worldview with an interpretative base for existence. The twofold model of “Light versus Darkness” serves the Christian theologizes with an example of fundamental separation between the spiritual and the physical in a tenable manner. But the scriptural narratives appear to be deficient to provide any traditional philosophical basis for the environment and the universe. The fundamental mainstream Christian belief depends on a self-existent and triune God as the creator of all known and unknown creation. Creation is believed to the majesty and glory of God, when human being chooses to turn away from the worship of God and to worship God’s creation, that is, to commit idolatry. As result the effects of idolatry reveal itself as corruption and malevolence in the natural order of the universe, as the apostle Paul confirms The created universe is waiting with eager expectation for God’s sons to be revealed. It was made subject to frustration, not of its own choice but by the will of him who subjected it, yet with hope that the universe itself is to be freed from the shackles of mortality and is to enter upon the glorious liberty of the children of God. Up to the present, as we know, the whole created universe in all its parts groans as if in the pangs of childbirth. (Naugle 34) Sense of Righteousness in Christianity: A Christian’s Response to Injustice to Environmental Since righteousness pervades a Christian’s mind, his awareness of the injustice, to the successors of this world, induced by the ruthless exploitation of the natural resources would necessarily prevents him from supporting any policies that threaten the environmental sanctity. Man is born sinner. But the redemption from this sin requires him not only union with God by loving His creation but maintaining righteousness in the place where he lives. Indeed Christian concept of redemption has a huge impact on the worldly notion of mankind. First it considers that human being is corrupted within himself. Yet since he has been created in the image of God, he is capable of achieving redemption through worshiping Him. Man as a true worshipper becomes able to understand “the universe is an expression of the creative nature and will of God” (Eisenbarth and Treuren 9). This redemptive memorandum lies at the heart of the proclamation of the Gospel in Peter’s address to the Jerusalem crowd: “He [Jesus] must be received into heaven until the time comes for the universal restoration of which God has spoken through his holy prophets from the beginning” (Naugle 23). Further elaborating the significance of redemption in with Christian worldview, David Naugle says that there is “A stereological and doxological purpose to human history, that God is glorying himself in the redemption of his people and the cosmos, terminating in a final judgment and the creation of a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” (67) Christian Environmentalism and Spiritual Ecology The question whether Christianity can fulfill the demand of ‘spiritual ecology’ is still an unresolved issue. Concept of ‘Spiritual ecology’ primarily puts emphasis on the fact that “The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between the way nature works and the way man thinks.” (Dahua 26) According to the modern industrial society, nature is a mere tool to be handled in order for the development of human being. Rejecting this industrial view, ‘spiritual ecology’ advocates that nature is an organic whole. In this organic whole, man exists as an integral part. Such view assumes that man must not perturb the purity of the nature. ‘Spiritual ecology’, emphasizes a man’s ‘indigenous wisdom’ which refers to his knowledge about the environment in relation to his society and the place land where he or she lives. It often recognizes a man’s wisdom of “symbiotic relationship with an animate nature” (Berry 45). Awareness of one’s symbiotic connection with nature inevitably makes him or her know the implication and effects of their actions on their lives and also on the life of their future generation. A balanced spiritual ecological view of man-nature relationship asserts the following: “The present urgency is to begin thinking within the context of the whole planet, the integral earth community with all its human and other-than-human components” (Berry 34). Christianity does not tell much about the position, role and relation of man in the universe as well as in nature. But it can be argued that since Christianity claims that everything in the whole universe is the creation of god, then a devout Christian must feel that he is a part of it. Also Christianity tells nothing about the ‘indigenous wisdom’. Either it does not oppose a man’s effort to acquire such wisdom. Conclusion Christianity is one of the dominant religions in the world. In order to respond to the growing demand of spiritual ecology to employ spirituality and religiosity for a better environmental condition, Christian theologians had shown significant effort to adapt its cardinal beliefs with contemporary ecological needs. Though the biblical evidences do not tell much about man’s relationship with environment, most of the Christian doctrines are quite congenial to the world environment. On the surface level, it seems to be destructive for the environment. But a scrutiny of the Christian doctrine will reveal that the religion is quite environment-friendly. Works Cited Bergmann, Sigurd. “Christianity and Nature in Europe.” Norwegian University of Science and Technology, n.d. web. 3 December 2012. < http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/bron/pdf--christianity/Bergmann--Christianity%20in%20Europe.pdf> Berry, Thomas. The Sacred Universe. Essays edited by Mary Evelyn Tucker. Columbia University Press, New York, 2009 Dahua, Cui. “Daoist Thought and its Implications in Modern Times”, Literature, History and Philosophy. 1995, Vol. 1 Deem, Rich. “Is Christianity anti-Environmental?” Evidence for God. n.d. web. 3 December 2012. Eisenbarth, R. Steven and Treuren, Kenneth, W. “Christian Worldview and the Engineering Context”, (Christian Engineering Education Conference 2004, http://engr.calvin.edu/ces/ceec) Hansberry, John. “Christianity: beliefs about care of the planet.” Religious Studies. British Broadcasting Corporation. n.d. web. 3 December 2012. Leviticus 25:23. n.d. web. 3 December 2012. Naugle, David K. (2002) Worldview, The History of a Concept. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI. Read More